another repentance thread

[Vort]

He tasted all of our sins by suffering the consequences of them.

Suffering the consequences of raping your neighbor is not the same as raping your neighbor.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is.

[Vort]

I don't think anyone is saying that it is.

Suggesting that, by suffering for our sins, the Lord "tasted sin" in the same sense that a sinner tastes sin is indeed like saying that suffering the consequences of raping your neighbor is the same as raping your neighbor.

[Guest mysticmorini]

No one is saying that it is the same sense either

[Vort]

No one is saying that either

Are you reading the thread? AGStacker wrote:

He tasted all of our sins by suffering the consequences of them.

[Guest mysticmorini]

He did say anything about what sense the lord tasted all of our sins, if he (the Lord)did not literally suffer the consequences of our sins, how did he suffer them?

[john doe]

Okay guys, let's try to remember to play nice together. Since this is the internet and we can't see each other, it is sometimes hard to get a point across without seeming harsh. Let's all make an attempt to be fully understood without giving or taking offense as much as possible. Before pushing the 'post reply' button, ask yourself how you would react if someone addressed you in the same way and tone you are addressing them. And then try to be a little nicer. Please, let's be kinder and gentler in our words.

[Vort]

He did say anything about what sense the lord tasted all of our sins, if he (the Lord)did not literally suffer the consequences of our sins, how did he suffer them?

The consequence of sin is eternal damnation. You surely are not suggesting that the Lord is eternally damned. Then what?

In any case, claiming that the Lord "tasted sin" because he suffered for our sins is a non sequitur.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Eternal damnation is the only consequence. Sin has no other consequences? You still haven't answers the question, in what since did he suffer our sins?

[Vort]

Eternal damnation is the only consequence. Sin has no other consequences? You still haven't answers the question, in what since did he suffer our sins?

In the sense that the wage of sin is death, and he suffered death for our sins.

Are you suggesting that "suffering for our sins" is somehow synonymous with "committing all our sins"?

[rameumptom]

The gospel teaches there are three levels of heaven. Those who are valiant in keeping the commandments and serving the Lord will receive the Celestial glory. Those who are "honorable men of the earth", who are basically good but not valiant, will receive a Telestial glory. Those who have sinned, and barely repented of sins will receive a Telestial glory. (D&C 76).

There is a law connected to each heaven. If a person does not keep the celestial law, he cannot receive a celestial glory. If he does not live a terrestrial law, he cannot receive a terrestrial glory. And if he does not live the telestial law, he will go to Outer Darkness. (D&C 88).

[Guest mysticmorini]

In the sense that the wage of sin is death, and he suffered death for our sins.

Are you suggesting that "suffering for our sins" is somehow synonymous with "committing all our sins"?

I would think that Christ's suffering for our sins was more than him simply dying. All we know for sure is what the scripture says; He suffered all the sins of the world, and If we don't accept his attonement we must suffer even as he suffered. anything beyond that is pure speculation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Eternal damnation is the only consequence. Sin has no other consequences? You still haven't answers the question, in what since did he suffer our sins?

We don't know how he suffered in that way. We couldn't comprehend that type of suffering as it is only something Christ could go through. His death was not the only suffering. A lot of the suffering occurred when the apostles were "asleep", so we don't have a specific description of even what that looked like completely. This was spiritual suffering not just something outwardly represented by bleeding or being on the cross, it was way way more than that.

President John Taylor: "Jesus had to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.... And as he in his own person bore the sins of all, and atoned for them by the sacrifice of himself, so there came upon him the weight and agony of ages and generations, the indescribable agony consequent upon this great sacrificial atonement wherein he bore the sins of the world, and suffered in his own person the consequences of an eternal law of God broken by man. Hence his profound grief, his indescribable anguish, his overpowering torture, all experienced in the submission to the eternal fiat of Jehovah and the requirements of an inexorable law.

"The suffering of the Son of God was not simply the suffering of personal death; for in assuming the position that he did in making an atonement for the sins of the world he bore the weight, the responsibility, and the burden of the sins of all men, which, to us, is incomprehensible.

"Groaning beneath this concentrated load, this intense, incomprehensible pressure, this terrible exaction of Divine Justice, from which feeble humanity shrank, and through the agony thus experienced sweating great drops of blood, He was led to exclaim, 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' He had wrestled with the superincumbent load in the wilderness, He had struggled against the powers of darkness that had been let loose upon him there; placed below all things, His mind surcharged with agony and pain, lonely and apparently helpless and forsaken, in his agony the blood oozed from His pores."

[Suzie]

He tasted all of our sins by suffering the consequences of them.

Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me.

If I go and rob a bank and my brother pays for the consequence of my actions and lands in jail, are you saying he now tasted what is like to rob a bank even though he did NOT participate in the act? I'm really confused at what you meant.

Paying the consequence for our actions (sin) is one thing. That's what the Lord did. He suffered and payed for our sins, it doesn't mean he "tasted" our sins. If he indeed tasted our sins then you're saying he was not a sinless man. Maybe you meant something completely different?

[Suzie]

He did say anything about what sense the lord tasted all of our sins, if he (the Lord)did not literally suffer the consequences of our sins, how did he suffer them?

Why are you equating "tasting" our sins with suffering the consequences of them? Maybe you could please tell me your definition of "tasting" from your message? Thanks.

[Connie]

Sin and Suffering - Ensign July 1992

[Suzie]

From Connie's link:

Some Latter-day Saints who wrongly think repentance is easy maintain that a person is better off after he has sinned and repented. “Get a little experience with sin,” one argument goes, “and then you will be better able to counsel and sympathize with others. You can always repent.”

I plead with you, my brothers and sisters, my young friends and my older friends, avoid transgression! The idea that one can deliberately sin and easily repent or that one is better off after sinning and repenting are devilish lies of the adversary. Would anyone seriously contend that it is better to learn firsthand that a certain blow will break a bone or a certain mixture of chemicals will explode and burn off our skin? Are we better off after we have sustained and been scarred from such injuries? It is obviously better to heed the warnings of wise persons who know the effects of certain traumas on our bodies.

Just as we can benefit from someone else’s experience in matters such as these, we can also benefit from the warnings contained in the commandments of God. We don’t have to have personal experience with the effects of serious transgressions to know that they are injurious to our souls and destructive of our eternal welfare.

[unixknight]

I think some folks are over-analyzing that original quote.

The way I read it, the author is trying to reassure people who are recovering from sin of their own self worth. They need to know, and to be assured, that they're still loved and valued by the Creator despite their failings. That's the point of the parable of the shepherd who rejoices in finding that one lost sheep.

That's it. Nobody's counseling people to go out and sin as a way of generating "greatness" for themselves. Nobody's extolling the virtues of having a sinful past.

Some of you guys will relate to this better than others... but when you have sinned... I mean really blown it bigtime, self loathing becomes the biggest obstacle to repentance.

Ask me how I know.

You start to HATE yourself. You start to believe that you may just as well keep living in sin because you aren't worthy or deserving of anything better. These are, of course, lies that originate with Satan but knowing that doesn't make it any easier to disbelieve them. I once spent time with a counselor that my Bishop referred me to and he asked me if I believed that the Savior's sacrifice was as much for me as anyone else. I answered "No."

Unless you've been there you can NOT know how hideously damaged your spirit has to be to believe that. And I did. I believed it. I believed it absolutely. I still struggle with it now. I told that counselor that I would concede that I could benefit from that sacrifice by virtue of being a part of the human race. He asked me if I believed the Savior would have done it even if it would only have benefited me alone. I said again, "No."

People tend to be very dismissive and judgmental of those who have really botched things up in their life, and probably find it very easy to simply dismiss a quote like the one that started this thread. Let me tell you something... That quote IS beautiful and not because it makes one prideful, but because it reassures those who need it that yes, they still have value and that maybe there's some good that can come of their experience. People who come through that gauntlet, I've noticed, tend to be less judgmental, more humble, more understanding. (This is a generalization, mind you.) They know what it's like because they've been there and counsel from such people can be very valuable indeed.

When I fell, I felt incredibly alienated from my brothers and sisters in the ward because I believed that they were too good for me and I did not deserve to be in their company. Some part of me still does, but reading quotes like that or reading parables like the one of the prodigal son or the shepherd and the sheep gives me hope.

Does it make people who have come through sin "better?" than those who haven't? No it doesn't, but it does equip them with some unique tools that can be used for good, and there's a lot of value in that.

Edited July 13, 2011 by unixknight
Typo: "quote" not "quite"

[RescueMom]

Which his sons did the Father love more in the story of the Prodigal Son? That's basically what this thread comes down to isn't it?

Being there is only one perfect son, and he was sacraficed for all of our sins...I guess we have our answer about how much the father loved all his children, even his sinful children. Through repentance we can all inherit what Christ has inherited. If a sinner comes home, does that dimish Christ?

Really we should be happy the prodigal sons and daughters come back into the fold, we should be celebrating with our Father. I look at this way if I am bitter that a fallen soul repents, learns something, and comes home and can inherit the kingdom of God, then I might need to take the beam out of my own eye...long before I say I am going to inherit the kingdom of God.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Taking on sin is far different from tasting sin in the sense the author describes. What the author says is false on its face. Sinning is never better than not sinning. Sinning and repenting is not superior to refusing to sin in the first place.

I agree with Vort, but I also think it doesn't matter for us...we have all tasted sin. We all need the Atonement, and if we could get past this "but I didn't need to see the Bishop" rationalization, then we could more fully appreciate the Atonement.

I'm in a hurry...I hope that is clear, if not let me know. :)

[rameumptom]

How the ancients understood Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son is very different than how we view it. Here is a series of blog posts concerning it:

Connections: The Pursuing Father Part 1

I think we'll find that God does love his children with an infinite love. But it is not unconditional. Had the Prodigal Son not returned, he would not have received forgiveness.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I don't thin the father loved the prodigal son any more but he was glad that he returned, overjoyed in fact. I think unixknight said it best, thank you.